Christian Nationalism Panel x Tom Ascol & William Wolfe

Well, Vody, Tom, thank you so much for having me up here to interrogate both of you. After that wonderful presentation. I think you guys really lay it out for everybody listening, everybody live streaming, the definitions and denials pertaining to Christian nationalism. What it is, what it isn't, what it could be. And I think when we approach the subject, that careful approach of definitions is incredibly important. So just to just to kick us off, we'll keep things easy, keep things softball here. If somebody says, you know, are you a Christian nationalist? What is your sixty second response to that? So ask body, ask body. All right, Vody, are you a Christian nationalist? It depends, Okay, Like I said, it depends on who's asking, why they're asking, and what their definition is. And usually most times, if somebody's asking the question like that, almost always, when I find out what their definition and what their definition is and why they're asking, almost always it ends up being a no. Because if somebody comes up, nigga, are you Christian nationalists? They're usually talking about that wide eyed wrap, the Bible in the cross in the flag. You know what I mean? That caricature that almost nobody is, you know. So what I found is when people are asking the question that way and you press back, you know, what do you mean, how are you defining it? The answer is almost always a no. But when people are you know, like when you're reading you know, taking America Back for God, and you look at the list of questions, you know, I've finished that, and I go, well, well, yeah, yes, of course I am. You know, sign me up in the State Department. I'm a new ambassador, you know. Yeah, absolutely so. And I know it may sound like I'm being coy or you know, trying to dodge or whatever, but it's not that. It's just that this is actually a tool. It's meant as a pejorative, you know, and it's meant as a dodge. So that that's why it's this approach. I mean, I'm not a guy who's embarrassed or ashamed of you know, who I am or what I believe or whatever. But I'm also not a fool who's gonna let myself be trapped, uh, you know, bye bye by questions like that. So yeah, it's fascinating to me. I've had three reporters over the last three months contact me because they wanted to interview a Christian nationalist. And uh did this you know? Uh? I mean it was really funny. One guy called me a Christian nationalist on social media and uh, I think I said something like, you know. You're a liar or something. Why would you say something that you don't know it's true. He took offense. So we talked back privately and I said, what do you mean by Christian nationalism? And so he gives me it's litany. I said, I'm not that. He said, well, what I thought you were, because you know you're a gist abortion and you know you don't think LGBTQ stuff ought to be publicized. And I said, yeah, but I'm not what you just said I am. And in his mind there was just this, you know, obvious connection that if you have those views and you've got to be everything else they accuse you of. Another guy, seeing inn reporter contacted me. He said, we want a leading voice in Christian nationalism to be represented. Said, who told you? I was that? And some leftist journalists called me, yeah, okay, voting and I said, well, I tell you, send me a list of questions and I'll you know, I'll answer him. So he wrote a list of questions. I answered him, and he writes me back. He says, think it's very thoughtful. Said, I don't think I can use any of this. That's not what I was. He said, But I would love to talk to you later because I might want to do another article you. So, yeah, I'm I'm a little bit put off by the question. I don't answer it straight up typically. Well, I think that both of you, and you're talking even just now, kind of relay that groundwork of the need for Christians, for pastors to be careful when approaching this conversation is topic, and so when other people define it in a certain way, you'll be inclined to say no or you won't give them what you're looking for. You formulated, via Paul Miller, a definition of Christian nationalism you would be okay with. So we can sort of take that to the bank. Vodi, is there a definition of Christian nationalism that you would put forward as a positive definition? I can work with that. Yeah, I can work with that. And again, I'm not trying, though to define myself or not define myself. I think Tom, you're saying the same thing that that's one of the definitions that you look at and go, okay, if that's what you mean, sure, and that you know that's that's one. Yeah, the issues that are raised under that banner in this debate, those issues are important. They're important, and I'm happy to talk about the issues and nail my colors of the mast on those particular issues. But just like that guy, forget where vice or I forget what outfit he was with, But he just in his mind, he could not separate the fact that you could believe that life begins at conception and that there ought to be equal protection under the law for preborn babies the way there are for anybody else outside the womb, and you think drag queen story hour ought to be criminalized, and the list of things like that, there's just moral absolutes. For me. He couldn't equate that you could believe that and not believe the Bible ought to be wrapped in the flag, and that America is in covenant with God, and all the wild stuff that gets lumped into it. In his mind, it was like these things are just logically connected. To each other. You have them all, you don't have them all, and it just shows the ignorance, the theological ignorance on the part of a lot of the people that are trying to drive this train. And it is a play. It is indeed, that is that they're attempting to marginalize, if not demonize, people that they oppose on these moral issues. Okay, So on the question of it's a play, I want to dig here. I mean, we were talking about this because you both have made this clear connection which I think is undeniable in terms of the actors involved, right, same actors pushing CRT, pushing wokeness, pushing you know, sort of like a new racism under the guise of racial reconciliation in the church, channeling Marxism. We saw them pivot to Christian nationalism. But unlike in the CRT fight where the faithful said no, this is wrong, there are a lot of men, brothers who are actually saying, well, wait a minute, I actually think Christian nationalism has some historical roots, has some biblical basis. So I'm going to try to run this play back on you. So I would like to get to you guys to speak to that particularly. I think the success of Steven's book points to that that Christian nationalism has sort of become in some ways a rallying cry for. Young men in a way that CRT never was. Right, those same men that rejected CRT actually want to identify as Christian nationalists. And I think it's because there's a very significant historical context that exists for Christian nationalism that didn't for critical theory. So i'd like to hear you guys speak to that. Yeah, and I think that point, yes, and I'll come back to that. But I think there's also this tendency, because it was kind of my tendency too, right, where if if those guys don't like it, then I probably am back, right, I mean, you know, just for fun. There's some of that fun, right, there's some of that going on. When you see the list of people you know who are having a problem with it, then you go, yeah, that's probably me, you know. So I think there's some of that. I think there's also a sense in which people recognize that those who are throwing that term around are at war with Americanism. You know, they're ashamed of being American. I mean you just you know, you hear them talking. It's like America is this horrible place that's responsible for all the horrible things, and you know, and so people are pushing back against that, and they're going, no, are we perfect? Absolutely not, but no, that's not who we are. So I think, you know, when you combine those, right, the US versus them, and then this sort of pushback against people who are I mean, they, I don't know any other way to say it other than that they're just anti American. Yeah, And I think it ties in as well to what we've lived through the last three years four years, where we had our supposed betters telling us, you know, Romans thirteen says you've got to obey the government and who are you? And to not go along with all the medical recommendations and mandates, and I mean, we just had so much that shoved down our throat. And the good thing that happened in response to that as people started reading Romans thirteen and sohn't he's a god servant for good? This ain't good. So what he's doing is wrong. And reading what people have said about it, reading what Puritans have written about it, right, Yeah. That's right. I mean, so a lot of this stuff just got uncovered and recovered, which was good, and so that opens up the whole world. It moves a lot of people out of this subjective mystical pietism they were forced to were forced to because their families falling apart, busines falling apart, their families falling apart in ways they never could have imagined, and going back and realizing, wait a minute, yeah, this this is not the way they told us the Bible actually reads. And we got a lot of ammunition in our history. We got people saying things that resonate with what I'm reading in the Bible. And so I think that whole awakening to historical awareness of how Christians in our heritage have dealt with political issues just kind of, you know, prime the pump for a book like Williams to come along and say both Steven Stevens. Yeah, don't confuse those two because they're not the same guy. Yeah, I did earlier. That's okay. I told Stephen when he was publishing and said, look all the criticism of Stevens and all the praises Williams that. Yeah. So I think that that's that kind of awakened people to look at the history to read it, and it's I mean, the stuff you're doing on colonies yeah. I looked over that in the Saffron there, and I'm just everybody, all of them had it. It's not hard. Ten minutes you can figure this out. Yeah, yeah, Well. The COVID stuff I think is actually a good example of where as Baptists, we would have some disagreements with Steven in particular and in the book and as a Baptist because I would like to see the church have a much more robust posture in terms of telling the government, you know, not in the Lord's house and not on the Lord's Day, like what you were saying. I think that's one of the things that makes this conversation so tricky is it's a merger of sort of the civil and the ecclesial lanes, and people are confused about the authority. So maybe for our listeners, for the live streamers, if you could just sort of chart out how you understand that authority structure to work, because many of sort of some of the individuals you even named, like Russell Moore, Uh, they would say, you know, not in the Lord's house, not on Lord's Day with the flag and the Bible and the cross. But then they'd also say keep your Christians faith in the Lord's house on the Lord's Day, and don't take it into the bublic square. So help help our listeners and our audience. Sort of understand those different lanes of authority that God has given to the Church and to the government. Let's really core this question. Yes, spheres of jurisdictions, sphere sovereignty. In the simplest terms, God has given us three spheres. He's given us the sphere of the family, He's given us the fear of the church, and the sphere of the government. The family has the rod, the church has the keys, and the government has the sword. Those are the three spheres, and those are the areas where they're sovereign. And I think sometimes especially as Baptist, you know, for us we tend to be unique, and that many of our other brethren want to unite the sphere of the state and the sphere of the church. Right, and so you do you have you have state church, and Baptists are unique, and that we are those folks who say, no, no state church. Right. But but yeah, for us, those three spheres sovereignty within those three spheres, and and and the church is the one that ministers to and disciples the other spheres. Yeah, that's right. And and there's overlap, you know, because I'm I'm in all three spheres. Yeah, you know, I'm a member of a church, I'm a member of a family, and I'm a member of this nation, this nation, So there's overlap. And sometimes there's questions about, okay, well, you know, does the does the government really have me to have the right tell me I can only drive fifty five miles an hour on this highway. And you know, you can get some philosophical debates about where those lines should be. Drawn, usually under ten over so what it is, okay, But with the fundamental understanding that Jesus Christ is Lord, all authority in heaven and on earth's been given to him. So every other authority, husbands, elders, kings, presidents, that they have delegated authority. It's been delegated to them to operate in their spheres. And what we saw happen during COVID is some of our civil authorities started acting like they were popes and monarchs and could dictate everything and the family And yes, right, and that's where clarity needs to happen. How's that going to come. It's going to come from the church. Because God has given the Word to the church, we are to be the disciplers. We're to be the ones that teach to teach. And here's another point that I think is really important on this the three threefold use of the law, you know, to bring about conviction, to be a rule of life for believers. That second sometimes called third use of the laws one we've neglected a lot, and that is to be a pedago logical influence on culture to restrain evil in the world. And I don't think we've seen that and applied that enough in our generation. We need to be proclaiming God's law to everybody. You may not have your brother's wife. We just need to be willing to say what God says because that has a restraining influence. Not going to save anybody, but it is a revelation from God to whom everyone will give an account. And if the Church doesn't do that, nobody else has been delegated that responsibility. We are the ones who are the stewards of the Word of God, the Gospel and the Law, and we we've got to be the teachers of it. So I think a real key part of this conversation about Christian nationalism is the state wielding the sword still does it under the authority of God absolute, You guys would both agree with. That, all of them, all of us fears do the authority of God. Yet, and so while while God has not licensed the state in any way to hold a sword at your throat and demand that you confess Christ as king, first of all, it's an impossibility. They can't. They can't make you actually believe that. What's been lost I think in American culture and secular culture is the idea that the state could actually wield the sword for Christian ends, for Christian ends that aren't necessarily matters pertaining to the Gospel and salvation. Thoughts on that, what do you mean by Christians? Well, laws like laws based on Christian morality, you know, the idea of you know, the fact that men are men and women are women. That obergerfella should be overturned talked right like what Gil was saying. That Gill quote that Christian kings have a particular interest in the enforcement of both tables. So there would be many many of our Baptist brothers would leap and say, no, no, no, no, no, the state doesn't have the authority to do anything that is related to the name Christian. But if it's not about the Gospel, do they have a concern for that under God? And feel free to rephrase it if you want to engage it differently. But I think this gets out a lot of what against stevens arguing, and even somewhat people say, if we don't have a secular state, then what kind of state do we have? Well, I'm a little nervous about what Gil said, you know. Okay, Yeah, I love Gil. And appreciate and learn a lot from him. But you know, the thing that gives me pause about just dismissing it out of hand is that Gil set it. And you know, the fact that Gil said it, peon like me needs to be pretty hesitant to just dismiss it it out of hand. I need to be thinking about what did he see, what did why was he saying that, what's the context and all of that? And that's what I think has been lost in our day. Is man, you make a statement like that, and you are you are absolutely advocating for a church state. You're advocating for everything that Baptist got killed for and protesting and Gil's not that, and so in his mind, which nobody ever accused him of being simple minded. In his mind, he could make that statement and see it is somehow consistent with all of his Baptists distinctives and commitments. So I want to I mean, it's it's an area that I think needs to be openly discussed, and I'm free, I'm wanting to do that, willing to do that, but I have to say, you know, when I looked into that, that's that's a little uncomfortable there. Yeah, you know, one of the most popular books in the in the early colonies. Of course, you know, you have your Bible, your your Geneva Bible, but you also have Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England. And you know, I don't know how many if you've seen Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England, but it's kind of like you know, Webster's eighteen twenty eight Dictionary in that you know, you'll have these legal statements and then uh scripture reference, you know, as to as to where these things are are coming from, and clearly you know, understood and indicated there is that the foundation of this is a biblical foundation, you know, And I think that's important and a lot of people run away from that and immediately want to say, no, you know, we're not a theocracy whatever. But if if our laws are not going to be based on God's moral law, then the question is what else do we have? You know what, what what other standard are we going to substitute for that that we Christians are going to say, yeah, I'm okay with that, because I'm I'm not, you know, I'm not. They have to they have to be they have to be based on God's moral law. And you know, natural law gets into this, but the natural law is also God's law. God made nature, and so a lot of times that gets separated, especially people that like to call themselves classical liberals that you know, appeal to some kind of natural law as opposed to what God has said. But there's a big gap. There's a long way between theocracy and calling drag Queen story Hour a blessing of freedom. You know, those aren't the only options we got. Yeah, I think that road runs through French. But we'll see. This is what you just said. Vote is exactly right. You can't come away from this. I think you would both of course agree laws have to have a moral foundation, and it's either going to be the biblical Christian moral foundation or it's going to be a moral foundation made up by man. And how's that working out for us? Yeah? So, actually a brother raised this question with me. I thought it was a great question, So I'm gonna channel it. This is a free one from the audience. Could you explain the difference between Christian nationalism as you would understand it. Try to picture Christian nationalisms. You would agree with a christiannationalism. You would agree with theonomy and theocracy for the audience, because a lot of people confuse those, right, A lot of people confuse theonomy and Christian nationalism, and those are different things. All three of them. I mean, theocracy would be the easiest one, I think for me to talk about, because it would want to have a nation that is governed consciously by religious laws. And so you have theocracy, you have Muslim theocracies, and you have had Christian attempts at theocracy, and you have Old Testament Israel theocracy. Theonomy, I mean, there's a theonomy is another one of these things. I cut my teeth on the Rush Doney, Theonomy, the bonds, and Theonomy. In the seventies and eighties, you know. I mean, that's to cut my teeth on, that's what I tried to learn. That's where I was first introduced to it and benefited from some and saw some real hesitations about it. Today there's what is being called general equity theonomy, and to me those seem like two different things. You know, the Confession talks about the civil laws no longer being binding on us. You know, they're they're obsolete except for in so far as the general equity in them can be seen and applied. Well, yeah, I mean we ought to recover that. I think that's what's happening. And the people who are recovering it, some of them saying, well, that's theonomy and we're general equity theonomous. Well, where I come from, you can believe in general equity or you can believe in theonomy, but you can't do them both. And so that's confusing to me. I want to let people define their own terms, but it's just odd to me from my background Christian nationalism. Again, I don't feel compelled to have to defend that or to say, yeah, let me give you a version of it that I think is right and good, unless run the issues are important. The tag yeah, I'm indifferent to that. Almost When people ask you, are you a theonomist, do you say to find what you mean by it? I always say no, no, and most of them get mad at and they said, but you said this and you said that. But yeah, well, once we get into the fine point of defining it, we In fact, I've come to agreement with some folks that call themselves theonymous and I don't. But they're talking about general equity in my mind, and so that's fine. Voting anything to add to that. No saying, And it's part partly this is partly a sixteen eighty nine and Westminster issue, especially pre ninety five Westminster issue, which is again that's inside baseball. But yeah, no, not a theonymous. Well, moving on to a next sort of next topic I would like you guys to address, is what is the relationship of a Christian to classical liberalism or democracy or constitutional republic? In other words, you know, do you Christians they obligated by scripture to prefer a particular form of government? Because when you hear from a lot of the anti Christian nationalists, particularly like Paul Miller, who's book I recently read and review, I mean, the man seems to think that along with the Ten Commandments, we got classical liberalism from Moses, you know, and when you listen to other folks in the evangelical world, you know, they seem to almost worship democracy and anything that would infringe upon it is scary. Scary is a big word they. Like to use. So just tease out what a Christian's relationship should be to a form of government. I mean, could a Christian prefer a Christian prince if they wanted to, or is that off limits? I think at the end of the day, the problem that we have is that we have an underdeveloped public theology. Right, That's why we got iopt right. I think at the end of the day, Christians don't know how to think biblically and think christianly about the civic sphere. When you don't know how to think critically and think biblically about the civic sphere, you become a slave to other people's definitions. And I think that's where people are. So what happens is you find someone who says things that you like, and that person identifies themselves as classical liberal or theonomist or whatever, and so because of the issues that you agree on and the things that you begin to say, well, that's the camp that I'm in. But you can't define it, and you can't defend it, and you can't speak intelligently to what the scriptures might say about it. And I think that's where our problem is. And part of that is because of the influence of Pietism for so long, the idea that, you know, real true Christianity is that Christianity that's about me and my salvation and eye holiness, you know, within the four walls of the church, you know, and and not out there. You know, you get people who spent enough time in that, and then you get the public sphere that basically comes crashing in on us, demanding things of us, forcing us right to have to engage, and all of a sudden, we don't have the tools, and so we just go look for labels. Was it Churchill who said that democracy is a second worst kind of government, second only to all the rest something like that, something like that. You know, I think that's right. I think you could have a Christian prince. I don't think the Bible prescribes a set form of political civil structure. I think what we have in a constitution republic is really good because it takes seriously the theological realities like depravity and uh like the flourishing and what God's designed the world to be, and dominion. So the checks and balances in the system. I think it's wonderful. I don't think that. Where you would have a righteous prince or king, that that would be something Unchristian or that you couldn't prosper there. I think you could prosper there. I think you have a greater danger of difficulties there because you got one guy, and one guy goes bad, You've got all kinds of problems. Whereas we got checks and balances on one guy's we got we've got attle systems and parties we got to deal with. But you there's no there's not going to be in a utopian governmental system. Well, as both of you alluded to in your talks, there's far more pressing issues in the nation right now than the quote unquote threat of Christian nationalism. I mean, honestly, you could say that the much, the much bigger issue is lgbt Q nationalism, rainbow pride nationalism. You know, as you see uh pictures of classrooms with gay pride flag, trans flag, Black Lives Matter flag. You know, it's secular nationalism. And and I think that I don't think, I know. I know that thousands, hundreds of thousands of Christians out there, Christian families are trying to figure out how to press back against this age. You know, Flannery O'Connor said, press back against the age as hard as it presses on you. So and I think some are turning I'm trying to trap Tom. Some are turning to Christian nationalists and alternate. But so then, what would you brothers say to pastors, to Christians? You know, what does it look like for us to try to step out into that public square, shake off the Pietism, and regain ground in the culture if we can for a more Christian society, certainly more than the one that we're seeing today. Yeah, I think that's happening. And that's kind of what I was alluding to before. The culture is not leaving us an option. A lot of people, a lot of Pietists, believed that if we left the culture alone, the culture would leave us alone. And nobody's thinking that anymore. Nobody's buying that lie anymore. It's positive there real quick. I mean, they just must not have read their Old Testament way because God made it very clear that the nations weren't going to. Leave, no, not at all. And so now all of a sudden, the culture comes crashing in and says, you must approve of this. You know, you must use these pronouns, you must bake cakes for these events. You know, you must, you must, you must, you must. And as a result of that, you know, now people are being awakened out of their slumber and they are running to you know, whatever they can find where people are are are standing up. So, yeah, I think in many ways that we don't have to call people out of that anymore, because it's not an option anymore. You know, you have to try real hard to not be involved in this fight at this point. Yeah, but there are churches all over there compromising, and they're refugees from I mean, Christians that are serious love their church have been with them for some decades. That is weep because of how the culture has just taken over and they're genuflecting to the high priests of culture. And so to your question, what I've said for years now, even long before this stuff broke out in recent years, is The best thing you can do as a Christian to live well in this world is find a healthy church and build your life around it. I mean, do what you got to do. And I agree for people, there's no health, no churches in one hundred miles of me, and uh, that's that's sad. Move you know, move well, But I got busy. What's more important to you? You know, you can have your business over here and lose your children, or you can move and maybe have to work at the seven to eleven and help build your life around the healthy church for the welfare of your children. So there's no subject for that. And so, but a healthy church is a key. You know, church is going to take these things seriously and not it was going to push back against the darkness that keeps encroaching. In a couple of rapid fire questions here, So cultural Christianity good or bad? Yes? Absolutely? Yes, Okay, so it's both and I think give you an example of that. You know, I read the statement from the preamble of the Zambian Constitution and people hear that and they're always like, you know, yeah, amen, you know, I wish we had that in our constitution and the Zambians wish they had our Christian heritage because they don't. And the Christian heritage is far more important than the statement in the Constitution. What a bunch of white Christian nationalists. Yeah, yeah, So the foundations that we have that we are now despising, that's what differentiates us. You know. Yeah. The cultural Christianity as an inevitable effect of vital Christianity. That's great because it doesn't exist except where there's vital Christianity. The attempt to try to replicate cultural Christianity because you like being able to sleep with your doors unlocked and you just wish you'd get back to Mayberry. You know, No, that's goofy, that's silly. It's not gonna happen. You're trying to get the cart before the horse. So if the cultural Christianity exists because of vital Christianity, cultural Christianity carries with it its own set of problems. Everybody thinks they're a Christian. You know, I came from Dallas before I moved here, and we had like, you know, two point three Christians per capita in Dallas. I mean, everybody was a Christian two or three times over there and. Had to get them lof you get it. That's exactly it. You know I'm a Christian. I say no, you're not. Let's just start there. So there's a it is good and bad. The good is whenever you got the real this stuff trickles out of it. The bad is whenever you look at the effects, the good effects of having a neighborhood that's safe, that's trickled out of vital Christianity and you start going after that, you think, oh, we got to recreate that. You've forgotten how you got that and never let the the cultural Christianity become a substitute for the real thing. Well, and that's where I think if Francis Schaeffer talked about, you know, you want to you want to pray for spiritual revival in churches and work for cultural renewal, and those can go together right at the same. Time, reformation and revival. Should Christians be should nations be Christian? Should nations aspire to be Christian? Yes? Or no? Yes in the sense of body define it, yeah, yes, Okay. So when you say yes, body, how are you envisioning a nation aspires to be Christian? Listen? Acknowledge that Jesus is Lord. Kiss the sun, you know, kiss the sun. Recognize that, that recognized the lordship of Christ. You know, blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. So yeah, and I mean in that sense, we just we absolutely should be praying for, yearning for, and striving for that. You know, A question that started rattling around in my mind the last couple of years is if this generation of Americans had the opportunity and give the assignment to create a new nation, we couldn't create what this nation is. We couldn't do it. We create a monster. I mean why is that? Because we don't have the benefits of Godliness that came about from the massive deposits of vital Christianity over centuries that God did in the Purity movement, out of the Reformation and the awakenings that we had in this colonial period as well. All of that provided a moral capital that was utilized in the framing of this nation that we're bankrupt today. And if you look at it that way, what is our greatest need? It is revival. And that's why the Church cannot get caught up and saying, hey, we're going to go change society, you know, I mean, we're going to go out there and we're going to get our politicians doing our stuff. You know, there's a place for Christians to be concerned about that. But if you're more concerned about that, then you are about God sending the spirit down with power. You're just not thinking as carefully as you ought to, as theologically or historically as you ought to about how we got what we benefited from for so long. And we're also thinking too big. Everybody's thinking nationally and not locally. And and if COVID taught us anything, it taught us that it's more important who your sheriff is than who your president is, right, right, and and and so if everybody is just looking for the next great president who can fix America, and that's not how this works. That's not how you build this. You know, it's a it's a small local me, my family, my church, my community. You know. Yeah, you don't get there by you know, let's put the right guy at the top and then everything will will filter. No, that's that's not how it works. Yeah, well, I'm glad you brought up localism. I know that there are a lot of folks interested in Christian nationalism. This conversation who regularly say, well, you know what about localism. And I think that's right. You know, Edmund Burke called the family the little platoon of society, and that's what you want to focus on again. In ways, I think this resonates with. Young men and young women who are seeking to sort of break out of the you know, hyper sexualized dating, you know, app culture and actually pursue a healthy church, a healthy marriage, a healthy family and sort of starts at home. Back quickly though, to the Christian nation question. So between sort of a Jonathan Leeman and you brought out some of these critiques too. You said, Steven's assessment of calling a nation Christian, you know, attenuating from a Christian man sort of falls apart of man's repentant. On the other side of things, we'll have someone like Jonathan Lehman and also a Baptist saying, well, you can't call a nation Christian because a nation can't be regenerate. But both of you brothers just said nations should aspire to be Christian. So you know, do you think that that's an approach? You do think that that's an appropriate label a nation could assume for itself. When you use both these qualifications about ethos And yeah, I mean, of course, it's the effects of vital Christianity. It's not saying this is how you get vital Christianity by pulling the right levers in the voting booth and getting the right man in office. It's not that. It's an acknowledgment that there's God in heaven and he sent his son to this world. He's spoken to us in his word his law is true and right and good, and we're going to honor that. And how do you get there. You get there by people coming to know this God. I mean, and again that's what the church's disci assignment is, is to make disciples. So when that happens, you know, is my family Christian? Yeah? When before my kids were converted, we were a Christian family. They could say my father's God is my God, even though they had not been born again yet, and they knew that in our home we were going to worship Jesus Christ. And that's you know, that's just that was a significant part of their identity. Did that make them Christian? Know? But I don't have any qualms about calling that a Christian. Home and Leeman's Lemen's argument breaks down very quickly, because you know, a nation can't be Christian because it's not regenerate. Okay, how about a seminary, how about a college right. Or an institute of public theology? How about a church? How about a church? Right? Again? In that sense, I mean, if you if you want to be that reductionistic, it just it doesn't work. That dog won't hunt. It's interesting you say that, how about a church, because even as somebody who believes in regenerate church membership, which you both do as well, we do recognize that even with a body that we are practicing church discipline to ensure that everybody is regenerate, not everybody's going to be regenerate, right, and we still call it a Christian church, right, Yeah, even if you practice that carefully. I think we're running up to our time here. So this might be a little bit of a tough one. You can take it quickly, though, But I know I've also heard from a lot of faithful believers, you know, who say weep over the present the present evil of abortion, or look at past sins of slavery and segregation in Americans, say, how could you call us? How could we ever say we were a christiannation. We enslaved people are How could you ever say we are a Christian nation. We're slaughtering millions of unborn in the womb. You know, how do we deal with sort of national sins even in the context of something that could be called a Christian nation. Yeah, it's the same thing. We're talking about our ethos, we're talking about our foundation, and the flip side of that is we have an answer and remedy and we have something to call our nation to because of our ethos. Whereas if we're just a secular nation, why are you complaining? Right? Right, we can only complain about those evils and call them evils because we're not a secular nation. Amen. Yeah, that's right. And the heritage is there, just as in the civil rights movement, the listeners movement to say we need to live up to what we say we are and what we have been, and I think that's the argument today against abortion. Well, brothers, thank you for your time, closing comments, encouragements to this crowd and to our listeners. You know, as they. Walk out from here, what should they think about Christian nationalism? Be a real Christian and act like it. That's all I know. Amen. Amen, let's give a round of applause. Thank you, brother to tell us